Article 9 of Law No. 5651 was annulled effective 10 October 2024; the former 24-hour general personality-rights procedure is not a current remedy. General civil claims, Article 9/A privacy measures, Article 8 listed-offence measures and Article 8/A urgent public-interest measures have different conditions and deadlines. Law No. 7590 changed the relevant administrative authority to the Cybersecurity Presidency in July 2026. Deindexing search results is a separate question.
Access blocking, removal at source and removal from search results are different remedies. In Türkiye, the correct route depends on the legal ground, the decision-making authority and the scope of the requested measure. There is no single 24-hour procedure for every complaint about online content.
Article 9 of Law No. 5651 was annulled, effective 10 October 2024. It must not be treated as a current general personality-rights application procedure. Law No. 7590 also changed the relevant statutory administrative authority to the Cybersecurity Presidency in July 2026. This guide distinguishes those changes from the separate mechanisms that remain under Articles 8, 8/A and 9/A. See [1], [2] and [3].
Access blocking prevents access through the networks to which the measure applies; it does not itself erase the original publication. Content removal concerns removal by the publisher, content provider or hosting provider. A court can order removal where the applicable legal basis permits it, even though the court does not physically operate a foreign platform's servers. Deindexing removes specified search results, sometimes only for searches using a person's name; the underlying page may remain available.
These distinctions matter when framing a request. A block in Türkiye, deletion at source and a name-based search-result restriction do not necessarily have the same territorial or practical effect. The existence of a provisional measure is not, by itself, a final determination of liability.
The Constitutional Court annulled Article 9 in judgment E.2020/76, K.2023/172 of 11 October 2023. The judgment was published in Official Gazette No. 32425 on 10 January 2024, and the annulment took effect nine months later, on 10 October 2024. The former direct application to a criminal judgeship of peace (sulh ceza hâkimliği), its 24-hour decision rule and its name–URL non-association mechanism should therefore be described as historical, not as generally available current remedies. [1]
Annulment of Article 9 does not mean that personality rights lack judicial protection. In Bulut Duman and Others, application no. 2021/8675, 1 October 2025, paragraphs 29–30, the Constitutional Court explained that claimants can pursue general civil proceedings after the former statutory basis ceased to apply. Where a continuing, sufficiently clear violation and a need for prompt protection are established, courts can consider removal or blocking as an interim measure during those proceedings. This is not a revival of the former Article 9 timetable. [2]
Judges, trial courts and prosecutors have different roles under the relevant provisions. Administrative powers must also be read using the current statutory definitions. Article 27(2) of Law No. 7590 defines Başkan as the Cybersecurity President and Başkanlık as the Cybersecurity Presidency (Siber Güvenlik Başkanlığı), and replaces specified references to BTK in Law No. 5651. The law was published on 31 July 2026 in Official Gazette No. 33326. [3]
Article 26 of Law No. 7590 provides transitional arrangements, including continuation of existing secondary rules with the relevant authority references treated as references to the new authority, and a three-month period for transfer of specified assets and systems. A statutory transfer should not be confused with proof that every online application interface has already changed. Applicants should check the authority's current official submission instructions rather than rely on an old BTK-labelled form. [3]
The Access Providers Association (Erişim Sağlayıcıları Birliği, ESB) is an implementation and notification body, not a court determining whether a publication is unlawful. Article 6/A defines its role outside the Article 8 and Article 8/A mechanisms; Article 9/A expressly uses the Association for communicating privacy-related measures to access providers. [4]
| Issue | Legal route to assess |
|---|---|
| General harm to reputation or other personality rights | General civil protection and appropriate interim relief; do not use annulled Article 9 as the current basis. |
| Violation of privacy in an online publication | Article 9/A, with its specific application details and judicial follow-up. |
| Publication falling within the offences listed in Article 8 | Article 8 criminal-procedure or administrative blocking powers, according to the applicable paragraph. |
| Protection of life, safety, national security, public order, prevention of crime or public health | Article 8/A, subject to its statutory conditions and urgent-decision safeguards. |
| Name-based search results containing personal data | Search-engine requests and, where applicable, the Law No. 6698 data-protection complaint process. |
Copyright, unfair competition and press-related disputes may involve other legislation. They should not automatically be presented as grounds for a general Law No. 5651 application. A criminal complaint likewise does not automatically produce a block: the publication and requested measure must satisfy the relevant legal provision. [2] [4] [5]
Following Article 9's annulment, assess the appropriate civil claim, court jurisdiction, defendant and evidence supporting any interim application. The Constitutional Court's explanation in Bulut Duman and Others supports the availability of general civil protection; it does not guarantee relief for any unfavourable publication. A court must consider both the claimant's rights and freedom of expression. [2]
A person alleging a violation of privacy may apply directly to the Presidency. The application must identify the exact URL, explain how privacy was violated and provide identifying information. Incomplete requests are not processed. The President communicates the request to ESB for implementation; access providers must act immediately and at the latest within four hours. Blocking under this provision targets the relevant publication, part, image or video by URL. [4]
The applicant must submit the request to a criminal judgeship of peace within 24 hours of making it. The judge assesses the alleged privacy violation and announces the decision within 48 hours; Article 9/A(5) provides for the measure to lapse if judicial confirmation is not obtained as prescribed. The exceptional urgent power under Article 9/A(8)–(9) has a separate authority-led judicial submission process. These are privacy safeguards, not the old general Article 9 procedure. [4]
Article 8 concerns the statutory list of offences, not every possible internet-related offence. A judge may order a measure at the investigation stage and a court at the trial stage. In urgent investigations a prosecutor may act, subject to submission to a judge within 24 hours and a judicial decision within a further 24 hours. Article 8(4) separately empowers the President to order administrative access blocking. The Constitutional Court annulled the content-removal wording in that administrative paragraph; judicial and administrative powers should not be described as identical. [1] [4]
Article 8/A provides for judicial measures on specified public-interest grounds and, where delay is prejudicial, a decision by the President following a request from the Presidency of the Republic or the relevant ministries. The requesting body and the official taking the decision are distinct. An administrative decision under this route must be submitted for judicial approval within 24 hours; the judge must announce the decision within 48 hours, otherwise the decision lapses. [4]
| Provision and step | Statutory period |
|---|---|
| Article 8(2): prosecutor's urgent decision submitted to a judge | Within 24 hours; judge decides within 24 hours. |
| Article 8(5): implementation of a notified decision | Immediately, at the latest within four hours of notification. |
| Article 8/A(1): implementation of a notified decision | Immediately, at the latest within four hours of notification. |
| Article 8/A(2): urgent administrative decision submitted for approval | Submission within 24 hours; judicial decision within 48 hours. |
| Article 9/A(3): access provider implements the privacy measure request | Immediately, at the latest within four hours. |
| Article 9/A(5): applicant's judicial follow-up | Submission within 24 hours of the request; judge announces a decision within 48 hours. |
These periods do not promise that every complaint will succeed or that a civil personality-rights case will be decided within 24 hours. They concern specified steps after different triggering events. Article 8(4) administrative decisions should not be assigned the judicial-confirmation timetable of Article 8/A or the prosecutor's timetable in Article 8(2). [4]
Forthcoming change: Law No. 7578 introduces, from 1 November 2026, a one-hour implementation requirement for urgent Article 8/A decisions addressed to social-network providers with more than ten million daily accesses from Türkiye. That future rule is not treated as already operative on this guide's update date. [7]
A search-result request is not the same as deleting a news archive. Decision 2020/481 of the Personal Data Protection Board treats name-based search-result removal as a deindexing request and treats search engines as data controllers. Under that framework, individuals first apply to the search engine; a rejection or absence of a response can support a Board complaint subject to the applicable procedural rules. The individual's interests must be balanced against the public's interest in receiving information. [5]
The former Article 9(10) mechanism allowing a judge to disassociate a person's name from specified URLs formed part of the annulled Article 9 regime. It should not be presented as a generally available current shortcut to removing search results. Other legal remedies and platform policies need their own assessment. [1]
Being unhappy with a search result is not sufficient on its own. The data-protection assessment considers competing rights and the circumstances of the information, including its relevance and public interest. A deindexing outcome can leave the original publication intact, and a name-based restriction need not remove a page from every possible search. [5]
The review route depends on whether the act is a criminal-procedure judicial measure, an administrative act or a decision in civil proceedings. For objections governed by Article 268 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the general period is two weeks from learning of the decision unless a special rule applies. Law No. 7499 changed the former seven-day period; the transition applies to decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. Do not assume that the same court or deadline reviews every kind of online restriction. [6]
A challenge should address the precise legal basis, notification date, necessity, proportionality and scope of the order. Removing the source content may affect an existing measure, but the consequences differ between provisions; do not assume every order disappears automatically after deletion. [4]
Protection of reputation and privacy must be balanced against freedom of expression and press freedom. The Constitutional Court's Article 9 judgment criticised the lack of adequate procedural safeguards and proportionate decision-making. Neither lawful criticism nor a publication on a matter of public interest should be equated automatically with an actionable violation. Equally, freedom of expression does not dispense with analysis of a genuinely unlawful intrusion into privacy. [1] [2]
The lawful scope of blocking depends on the applicable provision. Article 9/A specifies URL-based privacy blocking; Articles 8(17) and 8/A(3) contain their own conditions for broader measures. A technical difficulty is not a free-standing legal ground for blocking an entire website. [4]
Preserve the precise URLs, dated copies or screenshots, the publication context and relevant correspondence before content changes. Where necessary, assess formal evidence-preservation options with counsel. Evidence of what appeared online is different from evidence that the publication was unlawful, and a screenshot alone does not decide the merits.
A foreign claimant should assess standing, jurisdiction, translation, identification and representation requirements for the particular route. Nationality or the fact that a site is accessible in Türkiye does not, on its own, identify the correct court or establish entitlement to an order. Neither this guide nor a platform complaint guarantees worldwide deletion.
There is no single 24-hour rule for every complaint. Articles 8, 8/A and 9/A have different decision, implementation and judicial-review deadlines. Article 9/A includes implementation within four hours and judicial follow-up within 24 hours. The former general personality-rights procedure under Article 9 was annulled effective 10 October 2024.
You can submit a request to the search engine. Where Law No. 6698 applies, Board decision 2020/481 provides a framework for name-based deindexing requests and subsequent complaints, subject to procedural requirements and a balancing of rights. Deindexing does not necessarily delete the original page. Former Article 9(10) is not a current general remedy.
A foreign claimant should assess the applicable legal basis, standing, jurisdiction, identification, translation and representation requirements. Nationality or accessibility in Türkiye does not by itself establish entitlement to a blocking or removal order. The appropriate route depends on the particular publication and alleged violation.
Access blocking restricts access through the affected networks. Removal concerns taking the content down at source, and may be ordered where the legal basis permits. Deindexing restricts search results while the underlying publication may remain online. These remedies can have different territorial and practical effects.
Foreign hosting does not necessarily prevent a measure restricting access through networks in Türkiye. The relevant statutory grounds and decision-making powers must still be satisfied. A domestic access block does not itself establish a right to worldwide deletion from a foreign platform.
The review route depends on the act and its legal basis. For objections governed by Code of Criminal Procedure Article 268, the general period is two weeks from learning of the decision unless a special rule applies. Law No. 7499's transition covers decisions given on or after 1 June 2024. Administrative and civil decisions require separate procedural assessment.
Not necessarily. A provisional blocking measure is not by itself a final determination of liability. The legal basis, evidential findings, scope and stage of the proceedings must be examined. Protection of personality rights and privacy must be balanced against freedom of expression.
Update record: First published 10 July 2026. Source-based revision 27 September 2026: corrected the Article 9 procedure and search-result discussion, updated administrative-authority references following Law No. 7590, separated statutory deadlines, corrected the objection period and removed an unverified case example. This is a general explanatory guide published by Bayraktar Attorneys, not an official translation or advice on an individual case.
For a source-linked correction or a case-specific enquiry, use the contact page. Identify the section, the statement concerned and the relevant official source.
